No kidding, LM has done a horrific job when it comes to the F-35, as for the F-22 they pitched it to congress so well that congress banned it from being exported, i mean talk about backfire.

But i must add,this is Boeing we're talking about, they might actually achieve it, considering how the X-32 project went constructional wise at least, but nemrod is correct for it enter the "fleet" by 2025 (as the article states) or earlier seems very optimistic at best.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a chance Russia might develop a 6gen fighter before 2040?

Possibly, but we still do not know what the requirements of a 6thgen fighter for Russia will be, i mean we still hardly know what the U.S wants in its next gen fighter, in short we still don't know the core technological leap that will define the 6th gen fighter.

The more I look at Boeing's model, the more I scratch my head wondering why we didn't just initially make something like this instead of the F-35 or 22. Congress should have held off on trying to actually produce a "next gen" fighter in the 90's and just kept to paper planes until the future warfare concept matured. Boeing's 6th gen proposal almost looks like it could have been the production X-32 if that STOVL requirement wasn't there.

LOS ANGELES — Northrop Grumman has stood up a pair of teams dedicated to developing a "sixth-generation" fighter for both the Navy and Air Force, years before the services intend to issue requests for information on potential replacements for current aircraft.

It's an aggressive move that Tom Vice, president of Northrop's aerospace division, hopes will pay off in a big way for his company.

"Northrop Grumman will compete for the next generation fighter," Vice flatly declared, noting that there is a program manager already leading a team of Northrop staffers on the program.

When asked whether he envisioned Northrop acting as a prime contractor on a future fighter, he added "of course."

Vice's comments were made during a trip to Northrop facilities in California, arranged and paid for by the company.

Both the Air Force and Navy have begun preliminary planning for what is referred to as next-generation air dominance, or "sixth-generation" fighters. After working together on the F-35 joint strike fighter, the two services are looking at procuring their own respective jets.

The Navy's program is dubbed F/A-XX, while the Air Force's effort is known as F-X. In September, Col. Tom Coglitore, Air Superiority Core Function Team chief at Air Combat Command, told Defense News he wants to see Milestone A acquisition activity in early fiscal 2018.

A spokesman for Northrop confirmed that there are individual teams focused on each of the service requirements.

Vice indicated that Northrop is looking at a supersonic, tailless airplane design as a potential solution, something he noted no one has ever done before.

"You don't see any supersonic airplanes today without tails," Vice said. "Why? It's really hard. But if you think about new ways to do advanced computing, very high speed processing, new materials – that's why the research we do is so important, so we can build what could likely be the next-generation fighter in 20 years. It's going to require that kind of technology, because to build that airplane is going to be really, really hard."

He also hinted that making a system optionally manned would be relatively easy for the company.

While Vice may be confident in his program, outside analysts have questioned whether Northrop can survive long-term as an attack airframe manufacturer, especially if it loses out on the Air Force's Long Range Strike-Bomber program.

That program is expected to award a contract to either Northrop or its competitor, a team of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, in late spring or early summer.

The U.S. Navy’s next generation air superiority fighter will not be “super-duper fast” or employ much in the way of stealth, a senior navy official announced on Wednesday.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s top officer, divulged some details about the Navy’s so-called Next Generation Air Dominance F/A-XX fighter jet during a speech at an industry conference.

“I don’t see that it’s going to be super-duper fast, because you can’t outrun missiles.” Greenert said, the Washington Examiner reported. “And you can’t become so stealthy that you become invisible — you are going to generate a signature of some sort,” he also noted, adding “You know that stealth may be overrated…. If something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable.”

(Recommended: 5 Ways to Replace the F-35)

In lieu of stealth and speed, Greenert said that the F/A-XX would gain access by deploying “a spectrum of weapons” that could suppress enemy air defenses.

Greenert made the remarks while speaking at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo in Washington, DC.

(Recommended: Will the F-35 Dominate the Skies?)

His concerns about speed and stealth appear to be valid. As USNI News notes, the proliferation of high-speed anti-air weapons to America’s potential adversaries greatly reduces the value of speed. Stealth also is a wasting asset, as Dave Majumdar recently explained on The National Interest:

“Russia and China are already working on new networked air defenses coupled with new radars operating in the UHF and VHF-bands that threaten to neutralize America’s massive investment in fifth-generation fighters. Fighter-sized stealth aircraft are only optimized to perform against high-frequency fire control band radars operating in the Ku, X, C and portions of the S-band.”

That the next generation fighter will gain access primarily by suppressing enemy air defenses also isn’t entirely surprising. After all, the Navy already employs the Boeing EA-18G Growler, an electronic warfare variant of the the F/A-18F Super Hornet, one of the planes that the F/A-XX will eventually replace.

(Recommended: How to Start A Proxy War With Russia)

Still, Greenert’s claims about the declining value of stealth and speed pose some stark questions for the armed forces and American taxpayers. The U.S. has spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars developing and fielding the “super-duper fast” F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, both of which rely on stealth to be effective. These fifth generation aircraft are expected to be the foundation of the U.S. fighter fleet for years to come. If their capabilities quickly become inadequate to meet America’s security needs, the U.S. could find itself facing a glaring fighter gap.

(Recommended: 5 Russian Weapons of War NATO Should Fear)

It’s little wonder then that the military is already fast at work trying to develop the next generation X-plane even though the F-35 JSF is not even operational yet. Unfortunately, these sixth generation fighters might not operational until 2035.

Last edited by nemrod on Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nemrod... nice post, but if you have read the rules properly one rule is to not use excessive smileys in your posts...

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

The U.S. Navy’s next generation air superiority fighter will not be “super-duper fast” or employ much in the way of stealth, a senior navy official announced on Wednesday.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s top officer, divulged some details about the Navy’s so-called Next Generation Air Dominance F/A-XX fighter jet during a speech at an industry conference.

“I don’t see that it’s going to be super-duper fast, because you can’t outrun missiles.” Greenert said, the Washington Examiner reported. “And you can’t become so stealthy that you become invisible — you are going to generate a signature of some sort,” he also noted, adding “You know that stealth may be overrated…. If something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable.”

(Recommended: 5 Ways to Replace the F-35)

In lieu of stealth and speed, Greenert said that the F/A-XX would gain access by deploying “a spectrum of weapons” that could suppress enemy air defenses.

Greenert made the remarks while speaking at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo in Washington, DC.

(Recommended: Will the F-35 Dominate the Skies?)

His concerns about speed and stealth appear to be valid. As USNI News notes, the proliferation of high-speed anti-air weapons to America’s potential adversaries greatly reduces the value of speed. Stealth also is a wasting asset, as Dave Majumdar recently explained on The National Interest:

“Russia and China are already working on new networked air defenses coupled with new radars operating in the UHF and VHF-bands that threaten to neutralize America’s massive investment in fifth-generation fighters. Fighter-sized stealth aircraft are only optimized to perform against high-frequency fire control band radars operating in the Ku, X, C and portions of the S-band.”

That the next generation fighter will gain access primarily by suppressing enemy air defenses also isn’t entirely surprising. After all, the Navy already employs the Boeing EA-18G Growler, an electronic warfare variant of the the F/A-18F Super Hornet, one of the planes that the F/A-XX will eventually replace.

(Recommended: How to Start A Proxy War With Russia)

Still, Greenert’s claims about the declining value of stealth and speed pose some stark questions for the armed forces and American taxpayers. The U.S. has spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars developing and fielding the “super-duper fast” F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, both of which rely on stealth to be effective. These fifth generation aircraft are expected to be the foundation of the U.S. fighter fleet for years to come. If their capabilities quickly become inadequate to meet America’s security needs, the U.S. could find itself facing a glaring fighter gap.

(Recommended: 5 Russian Weapons of War NATO Should Fear)

It’s little wonder then that the military is already fast at work trying to develop the next generation X-plane even though the F-35 JSF is not even operational yet. Unfortunately, these sixth generation fighters might not operational until 2035.

i will transfer it to United States section, we have a thread already there

GarryB wrote:Nemrod... nice post, but if you have read the rules properly one rule is to not use excessive smileys in your posts...

Sorry, I've edited the message.

George1 wrote:i will transfer it to United States section, we have a thread already there

Good initiative, I did pay not enough attention about the fact that It already existed a such topic. Next time I will be more cautious.

I don't know if you paid attention about the US officials statemnts, they admited the fact that stealth technology does not work -as Pierre Sprey said a long time ago-, hence, the only US joker stay the F-22, not because of its avionics, but because of its ability to dogfight, even though against a Mig-29, the US fighter has no chance to win.Even against a Mig-21-93 with upgraded new avionic, and new engine, the supposed victory of the F-22 is far to be obvious.

Can America's 6th Generation Fighter Jets Rule the Skies ?No. US has never obtained the suprematy-regarding intrinsically technology : F-86, F-100, Corsair AII, F-4, F-105, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35-, why will their so-called 6th Generation Fighter do better ? The only wars they did, it did not prove their hardware were better, on contrary. Now I cannot see US could when their economy is cra$hing.

Can America's 6th Generation Fighter Jets Rule the Skies?

The U.S. Navy’s sixth generation F/A-XX replacement for the service’s aging fleet of Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters should be designed primarily for an air-to-air role. A strike capability can be treated as a secondary concern, at least that’s the view of some industry officials.

According to some industry insiders with deep knowledge of both the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter and the Super Hornet, neither jet can adequately handle new threats like the Chinese Chengdu J-20 or the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA. The Chinese J-20 is particularly threatening, according to one senior industry official with an extensive fighter pilot background.

“When you see these next-generation fighters, the PAK-FA out of Russia and the J-20 out of China and some of their new missile technology, our advantage is dwindling,” said one senior industry official.

Typically, fighter pilots measure the capabilities of their mounts and compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of their jet to their enemies’ in the hopes of finding an advantage. That could mean finding a part of the flight envelope where one’s fighter turns better or out accelerates the enemy jet—or perhaps where friendly missiles have a range advantage. However, against the J-20 and PAK-FA, only the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor offers any real advantages, the official said.

One area where the J-20—for example—completely outmatches the F/A-18 and F-35, is supersonic performance. The J-20 can cruise at high supersonic speeds without using fuel guzzling afterburners for extended periods, which allows it to impart far more launch energy into its missiles.

“Take a J-20 that can cruise at mil power supersonic out to 300 plus miles before he has to turn around and come back, [this] makes it really hard for a subsonic fighter [that needs afterburners for supersonic flight] to go into that environment and survive,” said the official. “Especially in an away game when we are outnumbered.”

In a complicated air-to-air battle where there are many fighters involved, there are instances where one side or the other will have to try to “separate”—which basically means try to runaway at high speeds.

A fighter that needs to use afterburners for supersonic flight can typically only maintain those speeds for a minute or two before fuel becomes a critical problem. “If he’s in mil power supercruising, running you down, that’s not a good place to be,” the official sad.

Another source agreed that the F/A-XX might be more geared toward the air-to-air mission. The second official cited two major reasons. First, the F-35C can cover the strike role, and second, the sheer number of enemy aircraft that future carriers might faceoff against. “The F/A-XX requirements may well be biased towards fleet air defense versus strike operations,” the second official said. “The primary issue is the likely threat of numerical superiority in multiple dimensions.”

The second official added that, in his opinion, the F-35C can handle the J-20 one-on-one. However, if friendly forces are massively outnumbered, and they don’t have enough missiles to shoot down all the incoming enemy aircraft, the situation changes.

(Recommended: America's Ultimate Weapon of War)

“An F-35C can readily handle a J-20, but no group of aircraft performing fleet air defense can be expected to handle being outnumbered by more than the number of shots they have,” the second official said.

If the future F/A-XX is going to have to carry more missiles, it will necessarily need to have a large volume—if the jet is going to be stealthy, the official said. But because a flying wing design is needed for all-aspect broadband stealth—there is no room to stack weapons bays along the length of the jet if one assumes the F/A-XX will be a supersonic design. By necessity, a high performance supersonic aircraft has to be long and slender in order to have a good “fineness ratio” for efficient performance.

As such, new weapons will have to be developed. “A supersonic, flying wing fighter will likely require smaller missiles, or rely on directed energy weapons like a high energy laser to minimize internal payload volume,” the second official said. “However, broadband, all-aspect stealth is certainly possible for a subsonic carrier-based aircraft, where fineness ratio is not a concern.”

The first industry official, for his part, said that the Navy needs to develop the F/A-XX with an air-to-air bias. Basic attributes would include high-supersonic cruise capability at altitudes between 50,000 and 60,000 feet, stealth, advanced sensors and advanced weapons. “I think you can always make a good fighter into a good striker,” the official said. “They’re doing it with the F-22. There is no fighter in the world as good as an F-22.”

Meanwhile, John Stillion, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments argues in a recent paper that a next-generation fighter would not necessarily be a supersonic fighter, but rather a subsonic stealthy flying wing that would carry extremely long-range missiles. In simple terms, Stillion argues that stealth, payload and sensor capability will trump traditional fighter metrics like speed, altitude and turn capability.

One senior Air Force official said he agreed to an extent. But the Air Force official added that while traditional metrics might decline in importance, they will still be prominent in future fighter aircraft like that service’s F-X or the Navy’s F/A-XX—where the two services are hoping to kick-off a joint analysis of alternatives next year.

However, the early consensus is that the Navy and Air Force are likely to build separate platforms that share key technologies.

Meanwhile, some doubt that the Navy can afford an F/A-XX when looking at the service’s future budget. There are “a pile of must-pay bills like the Ohio-class replacement program,” the source said. “Not sure they can swallow a big development bill for F/A-XX, and field it in time.”

Dave Majumdar has been covering defense since 2004. He currently writes for the U.S. Naval Institute, Aviation Week and The Daily Beast, among others. Majumdar previously covered national security issues at Flight International, Defense News and C4ISR Journal. Majumdar studied Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and is a student of naval history.

Russia has also begun development of a sixth-generation fighter: http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141015/1028359115.html

Because Russia and the US have started developments of sixth generation fighter aircraft, it points to advances in technology (maybe even in ones that the public doesn't even know about) have allowed an entirely new generation of aircraft to be developed. The reason why the 5th generation aircraft are not as perfected as their 4th/4++ generation predecessors was because of the political-economic climate following the end of the Cold War and the unwillingness to spend to military aircraft. Maybe 6th generation aircraft will find ways to cut the cost so we could see them proliferate the skies as 3rd generation aircraft once did, but I am not holding my breath.

Anyway, it will be cool to see the technologies that sixth generation aircraft incorporate. I've heard all sorts of stuff ranging from autonomy to directed energy weapons.

Everyone might as well just use X-wings and TIE fighters, it's all CG anyways.

The whole "six-gen concept" propaganda right now is just the result of massive butthurt because Russia and China managed to produce fighters that make the US MIC's newest fighters look bland and they're trying desperately to save face. The worst part is, if the US 6th gen concept even goes anywhere, it's because the F-35 was such a colossal failure it's just easier to cut the program instead of trying to fix the problems with it. And what the heck is wrong with deep F-22 upgrades? Give it new skin and the F-35's sensors and it would be an amazing aircraft. Please don't tell me those ~170 airframes are a total fucking waste of taxpayer dollars.

Now Russia wants to get in on the Hollywood CG so as to not be out-BS'd. Sad.

The fact that they are looking at 6th gen aircraft already suggests lack of potential for 5th gen aircraft.

For the 6th gen fighters it seems the lack of vertical tail surfaces seems common so a requirement would be thrust vector engines as a must.

Stealth will be an aspect I suspect but I rather think it wont be to such a high level as the current 5th gen Us aircraft which seems to have made them expensive to maintain and use.

I suspect 6th gen aircraft will be more net centric and likely operate with a cluster of drone aircraft and perhaps even a drone aircraft carrying aircraft in support.

Beyond that features will likely be very smart weapons and possibly very high flight speed with variable cycle engines...

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

GarryB wrote:The fact that they are looking at 6th gen aircraft already suggests lack of potential for 5th gen aircraft.

For the 6th gen fighters it seems the lack of vertical tail surfaces seems common so a requirement would be thrust vector engines as a must.

Stealth will be an aspect I suspect but I rather think it wont be to such a high level as the current 5th gen Us aircraft which seems to have made them expensive to maintain and use.

I suspect 6th gen aircraft will be more net centric and likely operate with a cluster of drone aircraft and perhaps even a drone aircraft carrying aircraft in support.

Beyond that features will likely be very smart weapons and possibly very high flight speed with variable cycle engines...

Plenty of experts have cited that 6th generation aircraft could be piloted or autonomous. Looking forward, it makes sense that autonomy is the future. As fighter aircraft become more and more capable they will push the limit of what humans can handle. As televisual technology matures and the reduced cost and weight of not having any survival systems on board, it should allow 6th generation fighters to maintain their technological edge while cutting down on costs allowing for more widespread procurement.

As for the weapons we will see on sixth generation fighters many are hoping to see laser or directed energy weapons on board. In my own amateur opinion, I don't see this happening as missile technology is still progressing and laser weapon technology has not fully matured and remains cost prohibitive.

It will be interesting to see what sixth generation fighters are actually like in several years from now.

According to service officials, there’s no “silver bullet” or “exquisite” next-generation fighter jet that will single-handedly evade and counter the types of surface-to-air, air-to-air, anti-satellite, electronic attack and cyber threats that are springing up around the world, particularly if going up against a nuclear-armed state like Russia or China.

Instead, the air force will proceed with many parallel technology development efforts, like new propulsion systems, airframes, directed energy weapons and hypersonic missiles, to develop a “family of systems” – including longer-range, higher-payload platforms to launch volleys of weapons at targets from “standoff” distances and others that will swoop in for direct attacks.

Lt Gen James “Mike” Holmes, USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, says his team is moving away from terms like “fighter” and “next-generation” and will instead look at completely different ways of doing air warfare in the future.

His personal ambition would be to have an “operationally representative configuration” of this future air superiority network in place by 2025. The service has even delayed by one year its F-X or Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) analysis of alternatives to avoid ending up with requirements for another generation of fighter.

“F-X would have been most likely like a sixth-generation fighter and would have had a 20 or 30-year development programme,” Holmes said at an Air Force Association forum in Washington DC on 7 April. “What we want to try to do is solve the problem faster than that by looking out across the range of options and building what we’re capable of building instead of waiting for the next generation.”

For the past year, an air force “enterprise capability collaboration team” has been processing over 1,500 submissions from 14 organisations on 220 different initiatives related to achieving air superiority in 2030.

Of those submissions, almost half proposed new equipment, while others pushed modernisation of existing hardware, new battle concepts or tactics, techniques and procedures.

Based on that information, the air force has concluded that only a highly networked collection of weapon systems will be capable of tackling future threats, not just one or two new platforms with long development cycles. By contrast, it has taken more than 16 years for the service to produce its first war-ready combat squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35As, and the F-22 also took longer than planned.

The F-35 isn't outdated, says Holmes, but the technology demanded was so complex that "it took longer than we hoped to achieve".

“Exquisite capabilities ended up being late-to-need,” says USAF chief of strategic planning and integration Col Alex Grynkewich, who led the Air Superiority 2030 effort. “This generational paradigm is outdated. We needed that integrated network of capabilities; there is no silver bullet.”

Grynkewich says range and payload are critical, but some studies show that speed, manoeuvrability and some level of low-observable shaping or stealth still have their place.

There’s also a place for automation and human-machine teaming, through concepts like “loyal wingman” that pair manned and unmanned combat jets.

Grynkewich also wants to operationalise combat-focused space and cyber forces, since cyber warfare is now a weapon of war and because so many weapon systems rely on vulnerable space assets.

Money has been included in the air force's fiscal year 2017 budget to begin advance prototype efforts, but some members of the family of systems are already under development or being matured.

Holmes says a meeting will be convened with US Air Force Materiel Command leadership in May to examine ways of moving faster through the acquisition process. USAF will also involve rapid acquisition organisations within US Special Operations Command as well as its secretive Big Safari office.

The planning chiefs did not rule out building derivatives of existing aircraft or even the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber. Modest investments will also be made to upgrade and life-extending fourth-generation aircraft and modernise the F-22 Raptor.

As procurement plans begin for the next-generation fighter engine, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is launching a supporting initiative to gain maximum performance from all available avenues of adaptive engine technology, particularly the largely unexplored potential of the core. The Air Dominance Adaptive Propulsion Technology (ADAPT) program builds on almost a decade of variable engine research at AFRL.